On September 21, the
North Carolina Libertarian Party sued in state court, alleging that the state
constitutional provision that "Elections shall be free" requires
the state to set easier ballot access laws. Libít. Party of N.C. v Bd.
of Elections, Wake Superior Ct., 05cvs-13073. The case will move fast,
since the party has candidates in city elections this November.

On September 26, the
Court denied the partyís request to hold a primary in Charlotte on September
27. The party will now choose a candidate by private mail ballot, and will
return to court in mid-October seeking a preliminary injunction to get its
candidates on the November 2005 ballot.

North Carolina requires
69,734 signatures to put a new party on the ballot, and then removes it if
it fails to poll 10% for president or governor. The combination of a high
petition requirement, plus a high vote requirement, is deadly. If a party
just had to get 69,734 signatures once, some parties could do this. But to
expect them to do it over and over is another matter. The Reform Party spent
$250,000 in 2000 to qualify in North Carolina.

On September 19, the
Charlotte Observer titled an editorial, "Closed elections. State
Makes it Too Hard for Third Parties to get on Ballot."

On September 24, the
Jacksonville Daily News agreed, saying, "This past legislative
session, lawmakers had the opportunity to change the law to make it easier
for smaller parties to gain ballot access. But the Democrats and Republicans
holding leadership positions werenít about to let the proposal see the light
of day."

Bills to ease ballot
access have had these results during the last 16 years:

1989: H1199
passed Committee but got no further.

1991: H934
lost by one vote in Committee.

1993: H169
passed Committee but lost on the floor.

1997: S573
passed the Senate but was never brought up in the House.

2001: S10
passed the Senate and passed the House Committee, but lost on the House
floor.

2003: H867
passed Committee but the co-speakers prevented it from getting a floor vote.

2005: H88
passed Committee but was amended on the floor to do more harm than good.

Ballot access lawsuits
filed by minor parties, alleging that the State Constitution requires tolerant
ballot access, have won in Alaska, Maryland and Michigan. In each case the
laws had been upheld by federal courts, yet were overturned by state courts.

Recent editorials in
the Durham Herald-Sun, the Greenville Daily Reflector, the Henderson
Dispatch, andthe Washington Daily New, also support the
lawsuit. So do Common Cause and the League of Women Voters.

The lawsuit will be helped
by evidence that when North Carolina ballot access laws were lenient, no problem
with ballot crowding occurred. North Carolina only required 10,000 signatures
between 1929 and 1981, and never had a ballot with more than six parties on
the ballot. Also, in the past, the vote test for a party to remain on was
3%, not 10%.

Another fact helping
the lawsuit is that the Libertarian Party had 13,006 registered members until
last month, when the State Board of Elections decertified the party and forcibly
converted all the partyís members to independents. Libertarian registration
in North Carolina was larger than it had ever been. Also, it was the largest
minor party registration total for any minor party anywhere in the south,
except that Florida Libertarian registration is also 13,000.

N.Y.
RESTRICTION STRUCK DOWN

On September 7, the New
York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ruled that non-residents of
a city must be permitted to circulate a city initiative petition. Bray
v Masolais, 3rd jud. dept., 98777. Both state and federal courts
in New York had already ruled that the First Amendment requires that circulators
for candidates must be permitted to work outside their home legislative districts,
and the Bray decision rests upon those rulings. The Bray case
arose in Albany. Despite winning the lawsuit, the initiative failed to qualify.

MASSACHUSETTS
INITIATIVE TO EASE BALLOT ACCESS

An initiative is circulating
in Massachusetts to legalize "fusion", as well as to make it easier
for a party to remain on the ballot. "Fusion" means that two parties
are jointly permitted to nominate the same candidate.

The initiative would
amend the law on how a party remains on the ballot. Currently, if it has registration
below 1% of the state total, it must poll 3% for any statewide race, every
two years. The initiative would provide that the vote test would only need
to be met once every four years. Itís fairly easy for a party to poll 3% in
the mid-term years, since there are always five statewide state offices up.
But itís not easy in presidential years, especially when no U.S. Senate race
is on the ballot. For instance, in 2004, both the Green and Libertarian Parties
were disqualified because neither could poll 3% for president.

The initiative needs
65,825 signatures by November 23. It is backed by the Working Families Party
and several unions, and is likely to qualify. For more information, see MassBallotFreedom.com.

TWO
PANELS OF THE 6th CIRCUIT HEAR OHIO BALLOT ACCESS CASES

Two separate panels of
the U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th circuit, are weighing cases over
the constitutionality of Ohio ballot access petition deadlines. Hearings in
both cases were held during September.

The
New Party Petition Deadline

On September 14, a 3-judge
panel of the 6th circuit heard Libertarian Party of Ohio v Blackwell,
no. 04-4215. The main issue is the constitutionality of the Ohio law that
requires a new party to submit its petitions an entire year before a general
election.

The hearing was disappointing.
One of the three judges zealously took the stateís position, and dominated
the hearing. It appeared that none of the three judges were familiar with
the Libertarian Partyís evidence and its written arguments.

It should not be difficult
for any minor party to win a lawsuit against a law that requires a new party
to qualify an entire year before a general election. Ohio is the only state
with a deadline for new parties in the year before the election. No reported
court decision has ever upheld a new party petition deadline earlier than
April of an election year. However, when the attorney for the Libertarian
Party pointed this out, one judge said, "Well, that doesnít mean we are
bound by those precedents; we can be the first to uphold such a deadline!"

Ironically, the U.S.
Supreme Court itself already ruled that Ohioís new party petition is too early.
In Williams v Rhodes, the 1968 case that put George Wallaceís American
Independent Party on the ballot, the U.S. Supreme Court said Ohioís deadline
was "unreasonably early". At the time, the Ohio deadline was February
of an election year, three months later than the current law.

In 1968, Ohio required
a new party to submit a petition signed by 15% of the last gubernatorial vote.
The American Independent Party managed to get this number of signatures.

The only barrier that
kept the party off the ballot was that the party didnít submit them until
July 1968, instead of the deadline in February. After the party submitted
the signatures, which were rejected for being late, the party sued, and won
Williams v Rhodes in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The basis for these conclusions
about Williams v Rhodes can be found in the briefs of both sides in
that case, and in the transcript of the oral argument in the U.S. Supreme
Court. The 1968 decision itself does not make all these points as clear as
they could be. The American Independent Party in the lawsuit had complained
about theoretical difficulties in holding a primary, even if it had submitted
the signatures on time. The party feared that no one could run in its primary,
or vote in its primary, if they had voted in the Democratic or Republican
primaries in 1966. But Ohioís Secretary of State took the position that these
fears were groundless, and that he would have accommodated the party if it
had just met the deadline.

After the election, Ohio
lowered the number of signatures needed for a new party to 1% of the last
presidential or gubernatorial vote, but didnít reform the deadline, and even
made it earlier.

Ohio continues to defend
its early deadline by saying that the state Constitution requires the state
to provide a primary for each political party. Since Ohio holds its primary
in presidential years in March, election administration concerns require the
party to qualify by November of the year before.

In the current case,
the Libertarian Party had presented evidence showing that Ohio did not require
minor parties that appeared on its ballot to hold primaries between the onset
of the primary (back in 1908) and 1947 (even though the State Constitution
was the same on that point, during those years). Also, when courts had put
the American Independent Party on the ballot in 1968, and the Socialist Labor
Party on the ballot in 1970, no primaries had been held for those parties.

Also in 1976, the American
Partyís petition was not validated until after the primary was over, and therefore
it was permitted to nominate by convention. Finally, in 1996, when the Reform
Party didnít qualify in time for its own primary, the state still permitted
it to appear on the ballot (but for president only).

The Libertarian Party
also presented evidence that, in U.S. history, new parties are usually founded
in election years. The Republican Party was founded in July 6, 1854, in reaction
to Congress having passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in May 1854. The new party
went on to win a plurality in the U.S. House of Representatives that fall.

The Peopleís Party was
founded on February 22, 1892, at a mass meeting in St.. Louis called by twelve
organizations. That fall, it went on to poll 10% of the presidential vote
and to elect eleven members of the House.

Theodore Roosevelt called
for the formation of his new Progressive Party on June 22, 1912, in Chicago.
That party went on to place 2nd in the presidential race and to
elect nine members of the House.

Henry Wallace announced
the creation of his Progressive Party on December 29, 1947, in a radio broadcast
and meeting in Chicago. Although he only polled 2% of the vote, his party
won two U.S. House elections in 1948. No third party since then has elected
anyone to the House.

None of these parties
would have been able to get on the ballot in Ohio, if Ohioís current deadline
has been in effect back then.

All of this evidence
is in the record, but from the questions and comments made by the judges,
it seemed most likely that none of them had read the record. Furthermore,
the one judge who seemed zealous to uphold the law asked so many questions
about the timing of election-administration related matters, the attorney
for the Libertarian Party was unable to steer the argument around the points
he wanted to make. Only fifteen minutes had been allotted for each side.

The judge who seemed
zealously on the stateís side began a lengthy series of questions about the
time needed to process a petition. He asked the attorney for the Libertarian
Party, didnít the attorney agree that it probably takes 30 days for elections
officials to check signatures? And if the petition was rejected, didnít the
attorney agree that it would take 20 days for a lower court to settle the
dispute? And didnít the attorney agree that if the lower courtís opinion were
appealed, the mid-level court would take at least another 10 days? And didnít
the attorney agree that a further appeal to the State Supreme Court would
take at least 10 more days? And didnít the attorney agree that afterwards,
when the issue was settled, elections officials would need at least 20 days
to print the ballots? And didnít the attorney agree that absentee ballots
must be mailed 30 days before the election?

All this is beside the
point. Ohio law already sets a deadline of 75 days before the general election
for an independent presidential candidate to submit a petition, so itís clear
that all of these tasks can be managed with a petition deadline in late August.

If the Libertarian Partyís
attorney had the opportunity, he might have mentioned these further points:
five times, the U.S. Supreme Court has acted against early petition deadlines
for minor parties and independent candidates, and that Court has never specifically
upheld any particular deadline. Besides Williams v Rhodes, the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down Ohioís March deadline for independent presidential
candidates in 1983 in Anderson v Celebrezze. This decision is famous,
and the panel knows about it. The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled in Mandel
v Bradley in 1977 that when the historical record shows that few minor
party or independent candidates qualify in a state with early petition deadlines,
then that early deadline is probably unconstitutional. Mandel v Bradley
is not a well-known case, but the panel surely knows about this case too,
although it was not mentioned at oral argument.

What the panel didnít
seem to have read, however, was the evidence showing that Ohio has had fewer
minor parties on the ballot in the last 25 years than any other populous state.
This evidence is crucial to applying Mandel v Bradley.

Finally, there are two
instances at which the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed lower court decisions
that struck down early deadlines, and it is likely the panel is not aware
of these two cases. One of them, Lendall v Jernigan, struck down an
April petition deadline for independent candidates for the legislature in
Arkansas. Lendall v Jernigan is especially important because the plaintiff-candidate
in that case filed the lawsuit against the deadline before he had collected
any signatures. Yet the 3-judge U.S. District Court in 1976 agreed that he
had standing to challenge the deadline, and agreed with him that the deadline
is unconstitutional. And the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this decision, 433
US 901 (1977). Unfortunately, Lendall v Jernigan isnít reported, so
itís not easy to document this precedent.

Still other points that
never got raised were that 21 states have had early petition deadlines declared
unconstitutional (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota
and Utah). In a few of these cases, it was so obvious that the deadlines were
unconstitutional, that the states didnít even contest the lawsuits, but admitted
their deadlines couldnít be defended.

Also, in Arkansas, Nebraska,
Nevada, North Dakota and South Dakota, state laws required all new parties
to nominate by primary. But lawsuits filed against the new party petition
deadlines still won.

The other issue in the
Libertarian Ohio case is whether it violates due process for the state to
change the petition format in the middle of the partyís petition drive, and
not tell the party about the new form. This point did not result in much discussion.

Independent
Deadline Case

By coincidence, another
panel of the 6th circuit last month heard the case against Ohioís
March 1 deadline for independent candidates (for office other than president).
Lawrence v Blackwell, no. 04-4022. The plaintiff-candidate, David Lawrence,
had tried to run for the U.S. House last year using the independent candidate
procedures. He was actually the nominee of the Socialist Equality Party, which
did not attempt to gain political party status in Ohio. He had tried to file
a declaration of candidacy on the deadline, but he was unable to obtain the
needed 2,000 signatures until May 2004, too late. The U.S. District Court
had upheld the March 1 deadline on the grounds that it would be unfair to
the major parties if non-major party candidates could enter the race after
the major parties had chosen their nominees.

The most riveting moment
in the hearing came when the attorney for the Hamilton County Board of Elections
acknowledged that there is no election administration-related reason to set
the deadline so early. He said, "We could even handle it if the deadline
were in September. We can even handle special elections called with only six
weeks notice." The attorney for the county said the only justification
for the March 1 deadline is fairness to the major party nominees.

An unspoken point is
that the major parties control the state legislature, and if they donít like
nominating so early in the election year, they are free to change the primary
date. Another unspoken point is that if the Democrats and Republicans in the
legislature really feel that it is unfair to let others jump into the race
later, they could require a declaration of candidacy from independents on
primary day, and provide that the petition is due later. This is the pattern
used by Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Georgia and West Virginia, and for state
office only in Kentucky.

Decisions in either case
could come out at any time, but it would not be surprising if the decisions
take at least six months.

LEGISLATIVE
NEWS

California: SB
1050 passed the legislature on September 7. It legalizes write-in votes when
the voter forgets to "X" the box next to the name written in. The
Governor has until October 13 to sign or veto it.

Massachusetts:
H77, to lower the number of signatures for a statewide minor party or independent
candidate from 10,000 to 5,000, was heard on September 20 in the Joint Election
Law Committee. Three witnesses testified for it, and none testified against
it. The bill will probably be amended to ease the requirements for statewide
primary ballot access as well.

ADMINISTRATIVE
NEWS

Illinois: on September
7, the Attorney General ruled that towns are free to experiment with Ranked-Choice
Voting if they wish. State law does not prohibit such experimentation.

Kentucky: this
month, the Secretary of State will submit a proposed new regulation, directing
elections officials to start keeping a tally of voters who register in active
(but unqualified) minor parties.

Oregon: the Secretary
of State has asked the Attorney General to rule on independent candidate petitions.
Earlier this year, the legislature passed HB 2614, which says that no voter
may vote in the primary and sign an independent candidate petition. However,
since it is legal to circulate an independent candidate petition before the
primary, the new law raises a question. What should be done if a voter signs
an independent petition before the primary, and then tries to vote in the
primary?

MORE
LAWSUIT NEWS

Arizona: on July
12, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that state campaign finance law does not
prevent a political party from receiving donations from corporations and labor
unions (unless the money is earmarked for a particular candidate). Arizona
State Democratic Party v State, 115 P.3d 121.

California: on
August 25, the 9th circuit upheld a regulation that permits non-partisan
groups like the League of Women Voters to register voters inside a Veterans
Hospital, but does not permit partisan groups to do the same. Preminger
and Santa Clara Democratic Central Committee v Principi, 04-16981.

Georgia: on September
19, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the stateís new law, requiring
every voter who votes at the polls to show a Georgia drivers license or a
state identification card. Common Cause v Billups, no. 4:05-cv-201,
n.d., Rome. A Georgia ID card costs $20. The requirement appears to conflict
with the 24th amendment to the Constitution, which forbids imposition
of any tax on voters. Georgia says it will waive the fee for indigents, but
the 24th amendment does not just cover indigent voters; it covers
all voters.

Iowa: on September
15, the Libertarian and Green Parties filed a lawsuit against the stateís
voter registration rules, which force all voters to register "Republican",
"Democratic", or "independent". Iowa and Kansas are the
only states that donít have a blank line on the "political party"
question on the voter registration form. Iowa Libertarian Party v Culver,
4:05cv-521. The ACLU filed this case.

New Mexico: on
August 29, the State Supreme Court held arguments in the 2004 presidential
recount lawsuit. Cobb v Canvassing Board, no. 29095. David Cobb and
Michael Badnarik had applied for a recount last year, and paid the deposit
of $114,400. The state refused to recount the votes, and in early 2005 the
legislature increased the fee for a recount by a factor of ten.

New York: the
2nd circuit will hear Ulrich v Mane, no. 05-4560,in
late December 2005 or January 2006. This is the challenge to state law that
requires Republicans to submit 7,500 signatures in order to get on the primary
ballot for citywide office in New York city. The signatures must be collected
in 37 days, and there are only 440,000 registered Republicans eligible to
sign.

Ohio: on September
9, a State Court of Appeals refused to remove four initiatives from the November
2005 ballot, even though the signatures were obtained partly by out-of-state
circulators. State ex rel Finan v Blackwell, 05ap-854, 10th
dist. This is good news for Ralph Naderís pending lawsuit in the 6th
circuit, against an Ohio law that says out-of-state circulators for independent
candidates are forbidden. That case is Blankenship v Blackwell, 04-4259.

Oklahoma: the
pre-trial conference in the Libertarian Partyís lawsuit against the stateís
ballot access laws for minor parties has been postponed from early September
to late December, at the stateís request. Libertarian Political Organization
v Clingman, 2004-2949, Oklahoma Co. Dist. Ct.

Virginia: a federal
court held a hearing in Miller v Brown, 3:05cv-266, on September 14.
The issue is whether the Republican Party may enforce a bylaw, prohibiting
voters from voting in its primary if they have voted in a Democratic primary
during the last 5 years (unless they sign a statement of loyalty to the Republican
Party). Most of the argument focuses on whether the lawsuit can be heard this
early, since the Republican bylaw wouldnít affect any election until 2007.

Washington: on
August 27, a State Appeals Court invalidated a state law that makes it a crime
for a candidate to make a false statement about his or her opponent. Rickert
v State, 32274-9-II. The candidate who was being fined, Marilou Rickert,
was a Green Party nominee for state legislature in 2002. Her campaign material
had said that her Democratic opponent had voted to close a state facility,
when actually he had voted against closing it. The court said, "We hold
that the statute violates the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution
because it does not require that the candidate be damaged by the false statements."

Edwards is a political
science professor at Texas A&M University. His book argues that a direct
popular election, with no run-off, is the best way for the U.S. to elect a
president.

At least four books were
published last year on the electoral college (see the Sep.
1, 2005 B.A.N. for a review of After
the People Vote). This is the only one of these four books that opposes
the electoral college, and it will probably become the leading book for anti-electoral
college activists. It is a persuasive book, because it presents detailed,
fact-based analysis to rebut the claims generally made by supporters of the
electoral college.

The book is marred by
some factual errors. In an attempt to make the electoral college seem even
worse than it is, Edwards claims that Richard Nixon received more popular
votes in 1960 than John Kennedy did. And for the 1800 election, he says, "Had
there been no electoral college, John Adams would have won reelection in 1800"
over Thomas Jefferson.

Edwards, in these passages,
is saying that the electoral college has resulted in the election of the candidate
who placed second in the popular vote in six elections, not just four
(everyone agrees that the electoral college operated this way in 1824, 1876,
1888 and 2000).

However, his claim about
1800 is wrong. Edwards says the popular vote in 1800 is "not available".
Yet in 2002, Michael Dubin published United States Presidential Elections
1788-1860. According to that book, in 1800 the national popular vote was:
Jefferson 41,516; Adams, 25,748. Since Jefferson was actually elected in that
election, 1800 is not an example of the electoral college electing the candidate
who placed second in the popular vote.

Edwardís claim that Nixon
received more popular votes than Kennedy in 1960 is based on the theory that
Kennedy "really" only received 147,295 votes in Alabama.

Actually, Kennedy received
318,303 votes in Alabama in 1960. The only reason Edwards even tries to argue
that Kennedy received fewer voters, is that the Democratic slate of presidential
electors in 1960 was composed of five Democrats who promised to vote for Kennedy
in the electoral college if they were elected, and six Democrats who said
they wouldnít vote for him.

At the time, Alabama
listed all candidates for presidential elector on the ballot, with a check
box on the ballot next to the name of each candidate for presidential elector.
Voters werenít forced to vote for just one partyís candidates for elector;
they could pick and choose various elector candidates from amongst all five
parties that were on the ballot in 1960. The highest vote-getting Kennedy
elector received 318,303 votes; the highest anti-Kennedy Democrat received
324,050 votes. The entire Democratic slate was elected; Nixon electors only
received between 237,981 and 230,951 votes. In the electoral college, the
five Democrats who had said they would vote for Kennedy kept their word. The
other six Democrats also kept their word that they wouldnít vote for Kennedy.
They voted for Democratic U.S. Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia, to show their
displeasure with proposed civil rights legislation.

Edwards arrives at the
artificial total of 147,295 votes for Kennedy by multiplying five-elevenths
times 324,050. The falsity of such a formula can easily be shown in this way.
Imagine that a list of all the 318,303 voters who voted for a Kennedy elector
exists somewhere (obviously, since the U.S. has a secret ballot, no one could
ever possess such a list). While visualizing this list of 318,303 voters who
voted for an elector pledged to Kennedy, it is clearly absurd to somehow imagine
that only 147,295 people really "voted for Kennedy".

Other errors: the book
says that in Arizona, candidates for presidential elector are chosen in party
primaries. This has not been true since 1985. The book says that in Louisiana,
Mississippi and South Carolina, voters can still vote for separate candidates
for presidential elector. But this has not been true in Louisiana since 1976,
and has not been true in the other two states rsince 1980.

The book makes a common
error when it says Abraham Lincoln was "not on the ballot" in ten
states in 1860. Actually, back in 1860, "on the ballot" had no meaning.
Private ballots were legal (in fact, no other ballots existed; parties printed
their own ballots and distributed them to whomever wanted one). Lincoln didnít
receive any votes in ten southern states, not because he was kept off any
ballot, but because his campaign didnít nominate any presidential elector
candidates in those states.

Most writings in support
of the electoral college claim that the electoral college hurts minor parties,
and treats this as a virtue. Edwards tries to turn the tables on his opponents
by claiming that the electoral college actually helps minor parties and independent
presidential candidates. His arguments are quite strong. He points out that
nowadays, it is common knowledge that over half the states are not competitive
in presidential elections. Therefore, the voters are free to vote for minor
party or independent presidential candidates without being afraid of the "wasted
vote" symdrome. He also points out that under the Electoral College,
minor party and independent presidential candidates still show quite a bit
of support every so often.

Unfortunately, he seems
to accept the notion that strong minor party and independent presidential
candidates "damage the two-party system". A case can be made that
such candidates help keep the two-party system healthy, by guarding against
the tendency of one major party to become permanently stronger than the other
one. Edwards, like many other authors, glibly discusses "the two-party
system" without defining it first.

2006
STATEWIDE PETITIONING

The normal 2006 petitioning
chart is omitted from this issue of Ballot Access News. During the
last month, the Libertarian Party has started petitioning in Arkansas and
New Mexico; the Green Party has started in Arizona, Arkansas, and Montana;
and the Constitution Party has started in Hawaii.

CONSTITUTION
PARTY CANDIDATE TOPS DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE

California holds a special
election in the 48th congressional district on October 4. Although
17 candidates are on the primary ballot, only four of them have raised enough
money to file a campaign finance report. For the September 22 filing, the
leading Democrat, Steve Young, had raised $62,493. The Constitution Party
candidate, Jim Gilchrist, had raised $111,731. Among the Republicans, State
Senator John Campbell had $795,019 and Assemblyman Marilyn Brewer had $577,259.

SPECIAL
ELECTIONS

California: held
a special election for Assembly, 53rd district, on September 13.
The vote: Democratic 59.5%; Republican 38.5%; Peace & Freedom 2.0%. In
November 2004 the vote had been Democratic 50.5%; Republican 42.2%; Libertarian
4.7%; Peace & Freedom 2.6%.

Pennsylvania:
held a special election for state Representative, 200th district,
on September 13. The vote: Democratic 76.4%; Green 15.9%; Republican 7.7%.
In November 2004 there had been only one candidate, a Democrat.

GREENS
DO WELL IN MINNESOTA MAYORALTY ELECTIONS

On September 13, both Minneapolis
and St. Paul held Mayoral elections. In Minneapolis, Elizabeth Dickinson polled
19.5% in an 8-candidate race, placing third. In St. Paul, Farheen Hakeem polled
13.8% in a twelve-candidate race, also placing third.

VETERANS
PARTY MEETING

On November 18-20, the
Veterans Party will hold its first national conference, in Tampa, Florida.
For more information, see VeteransParty.us.

NEW
JERSEY GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE

The League of Women Voters
of New Jersey is sponsoring a televised gubernatorial debate on October 18
(New Jersey and Virginia are holding gubernatorial elections this November).
The League has invited four candidates, and all say they will attend: U.S.
Senator Jon Corzine (Democratic); Doug Forrester (Republican); Jeffrey Pawlowski
(Libertarian); and Hector Castillo (independent). Castilloís ballot slogan
is "Education Not Corruption".

Each state League has
its own traditional policy on whether to invite any minor party or independent
candidates into its debates. The New Jersey League has historically not done
so. This year, however, Pawlowski and Castillo were invited because they have
each raised over $300,000.

Before the League set
up its debates, it had looked as though there would be no 4-way debate. A
New Jersey Public TV station (NJN) sponsored a debate and invited only Corzine
and Forrester. Pawlowski sued to gain entry into this debate, but a judge
denied injunctive relief on the grounds that Pawlowski would not suffer irreparable
harm if he were excluded.

Then, the New Jersey
State Campaign Finance office, known as NJ ELEC, set out to sponsor a debate.
New Jersey campaign finance laws require NJ ELEC to sponsor debates and invite
anyone who had raised $300,000. NJ ELEC then said that it would only invite
Pawlowski and Castillo to debate, since Corzine and Forrester had already
debated each other in the Public TV debate.

ERRATA: the Sep. 1 B.A.N.
story on the Alaska Supreme Court blanket primary decision said that the
Democratic, Libertarian and Alaskan Independence Party had joined the Green
lawsuit. They supported it, but didnít join it.

SUBSCRIBING
TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you
can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit
card in connection with Paypal, use ban@richardwinger.com.
If you donít use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.